December 8, 2009

At Last, Someone Is Naming the WORST Books of the Decade

Which Mitch Albom novel are YOU going to nominate?: The Guardian is asking for suggestions for the worst books of decade. If you need ideas, you might want to look at the lists of the winners of the Delete Key Awards given out annually on One-Minute Book Reviews.

You know, now that I thought about it last night, I think Brown wrote horribly just so he could be noticed just like I think those writers who get on that “bad sex” list write bad sex scenes just to be noticed b/c honestly, I wouldn’t have known anything about those books unless they were nominated for that “bad sex” award…. but with Dan Brown, he got famous before any nomination for dishonorable awards (or did he? I don’t know?) anyway, I’m thinking yeah, maybe he should be disqualified on that basis of being so famous but as for being so bad he should get a pass? No way! I just think any grown man who writes that carelessly, that terribly, must’ve been doing it on purpose so now that I think about it, he shouldn’t get any more attention by being on that worst book list… I find myself actually getting curious and actually wanting to check out some of the books that people in the comments section of the the Guardian website nominated to be on the worst book list… so, no more Dan Brown attention for any of those ppl. who haven’t read him yet..

I meant to write “I agree but…” instead of “No way!” because I think he should get a pass not only for being so bad but for being so hugely famous while writing badly… more attention– even if it’s negative–will be given to him. I’d rather more obscure or literary writers of bad books who don’t have as much fame to have the attention.

You’ve put your finger on the dilemma that critics face in situations like this: You know you’re giving more attention to someone who has had more than his share already. A tough call, always. And I have to make it in early 2010 when I’ll be giving out the Delete Key Awards, so I appreciate your comment on more than one level.

It’s my sense that at the Literary Review, the editors are fishing for the larger species (Roth etc.) — in other words, it’s not a coincidence that Roth, Mailer and Updike have been shortlisted so often. The finalists almost always are reasonably well-known books that have received many reviews, for example. It’s almost as though the editors don’t want to kick someone who’s down but believe someone who’s “up” is better prepared to take it …